Looks like the substantive hearing is 23 November in Cardiff in the judicial review against @wiltshirepolice for breach of its statutory duty of impartiality. The police however claim they are under a duty to ‘support’ marginalised communities. Should be an interesting hearing.

The British Government is preparing an apparatus of internet censorship without parallel in the modern era. At the UN, Andy Burnham announced the creation of a National Centre for Information Defence — Labour’s Ministry of Truth. The Prime Minister says the centre will protect us from hostile foreign powers such as Russia, which he accused of spreading lies and disinformation about Britain, amplifying “far-right narratives” and interfering in our democracy. But the real purpose is to suppress dissent and silence those who criticise the Government or express views about the state of the country that run counter to Labour’s prevailing progressive orthodoxy. FSU Director of Policy and Research David Rose has written a new briefing examining the threadbare research the Government has used to justify its plans. The Government is clutching at straws — and, ironically, already spreading misinformation about the threat of misinformation. It has ignored a wealth of evidence from leading academics to push ahead with its new censorship regime. Burnham’s Government is putting Britain in the same league as some of the world’s most authoritarian powers. Watch the new episode of the FSU Podcast with General Secretary of the FSU Lord Young of Acton on YouTube and read @DavidRoseUK’s report below 👇

This woman praises a death sentence imposed on a man who insulted her prophet. Any religion which seeks death for insults and mockery must not be tolerated. If your gods and prophets are so weak they are shaken by mere words, they are not worth your belief or your devotion. Make up better ones.

Don’t hold your breath!

DfE has rewritten its practical Prevent guidance for school safeguarding leads and some of the changes deserve a closer look. A Prevent referral can be made without parental consent. A pupil does not need to show a clear or identifiable ideology before referral. The guidance also lists broad indicators such as “us and them” language, grievance and divisive speech. The guidance does put caveats in: not every awkward view is terrorism, and schools should look at the whole picture. Our point is simple: if staff apply those vague signs carelessly, ordinary contested opinions; including on politics or sex and gender, could get treated like a safeguarding risk, while parents may not even know a referral was made. We’ve gone through the new guidance, the case studies, the parental-consent rules and what actually changed on 24 September and 2 October. Prevent’s new rulebook for schools: who gets referred - and who gets told? protectandteach.org/prevents…

Crazy and terrifying state overreach. There should be absolutely no question that Nathan's words are not criminal, no matter what you think of them.

Over on PaedoSky, demented perma-furious ex-policeman Lynsay Watson is having the meltdown of all meltdowns over the justice system finally being able to tell the truth about what sex people are. It seems he's about to meet a fan.

It’s scarcely believable that all the injustices listed by S. Phillimore could have occurred in the last decade. The Scottow case is a shocker. Mr Justice Warby dealt with District Judge Dodd’s horrendous nonsense upon which Scottow’s wrongful conviction rested, on appeal:

Let’s hope at least one of the students will challenge this

We will not forget why Fair Cop existed in the first place. Any calls now for mature discussion about men who think they are women, will only happen with the memory of how they tried for so long to stifle all and any discussion.

Trans rape suspects can be called men, prosecutors told telegraph.co.uk/gift/607f200…

The CPS really have got themselves into a terrible state with gender ideology capture. A few years ago this headline would be unthinkable, but years of roundtables with Stonewall and Mermaids have frankly done very little for their clarity or credibility.

Fresh details have emerged on the Gosport arrest case, confirming Met / British Transport Police officers, reportedly diverted from a riot control training course, were behind the detention of a man named Pete. A source close to him says Pete has serious brain and skull health issues along with diabetes, yet was held for 24 hours without food or medical checks while his home was searched, with police later claiming they “forgot” he was there. @georgedmadgwick is now looking into the case as calls grow for answers and accountability.

The cost of cancel culture static1.squarespace.com/stat…

Silence is the cover paedophiles rely on. A swimming teacher entrusted with disabled, non-verbal children at Penarth Leisure Centre in South Wales was jailed for exploiting the very vulnerability meant to be protected. He targeted them because they couldn't tell. Safeguarding isn't box-ticking. It's the shield for children with the least power to speak. 🧵 1/3 south-wales.police.uk/news/s…

The Muslim Police Association operates as a cartel within the ranks. Officers either pay their dues by mouthing pro Palestine platitudes or, in terms of career prospects, they get whacked. @MartinDaubney @PoliceChiefs

I am being sued for defamation in the High Court by Paul Carruthers. The claim seeks damages of up to £65,000, together with an injunction and legal costs. The case arises from a livestream I made in July 2025 following a court judgment concerning the Gender Plus Hormone Clinic and the CQC. I was talking, angrily and robustly, about what I regard as the medical abuse of children. I have said for years that transitioning children is profound abuse. I believe children cannot meaningfully consent to interventions that may affect healthy bodies, sexual development, sexual function and fertility. I will continue to campaign about that. Carruthers now heads the Gender Plus Hormone Clinic. Gender Plus's own website says its hormone service is available from the age of 16, and describes Carruthers as Director of the clinic and leader of its endocrine pathway. Carruthers is publicly described as a gay man and elsewhere as transgender. I have not independently verified Carruthers’ biological sex. I am, of course, a sex-based campaigner who believes that sex is immutable. The central legal dispute is about meaning. One of the passages relied upon in the claim was: “If you want to know how paedophiles successfully managed to ingratiate themselves into positions of power, this is how. It's just unbelievable.” Carruthers says that those words were a personal allegation about Carruthers. I dispute that. I was not talking about Carruthers when I made that comment. I did not intend to say, or imply, that Paul Carruthers is a paedophile or has a sexual interest in children. The context of the livestream matters. I had been discussing the CQC, the Cass Review, regulatory loopholes and how institutions allow people to gain positions of influence. Immediately afterwards I returned to the court judgment. The claimant's solicitors themselves have proposed that the High Court determine the meaning of the words as a preliminary issue. When I was first challenged about the video, I ensured it was removed from public view and offered a public clarification and apology concerning the disputed implication, together with an undertaking not to repeat it. I did not want litigation. I tried to resolve the dispute. Proceedings were nevertheless issued, and I now have to defend myself. I do not have the resources to fund unlimited High Court litigation. I am therefore acting as a litigant in person, with the assistance of a McKenzie Friend, and I intend to obtain specialist defamation advice and barrister assistance at the stages where it is most important and where the funds allow. That still costs money. A complicated High Court case requires many hours of preparation: understanding procedure, responding properly to the Particulars of Claim, organising evidence, preparing documents and bundles, researching the law, corresponding with the other side and preparing for hearings. Specialist legal advice and advocacy will add substantially to that. I would never ask people to fund me to go looking for somebody to sue. I am the defendant. This fight was brought to me. If necessary, I will stand in the High Court and represent myself. I understand that litigation carries genuine risks and that I could lose. What I want is enough professional support and specialist advice to make sure I understand those risks and put forward the best defence I properly can. I am also going to be careful about what I publish while proceedings are live. This fundraiser is not an attempt to try the case on social media or encourage anyone to contact or target the claimant. The legal questions belong in court. But the wider principle matters enormously to me. People must be able to criticise medicine, regulators and powerful institutions, particularly where children are concerned. Free speech cannot become something only wealthy people can afford to defend. If the financial price of defending controversial speech becomes ruinous, you don't need to formally ban people from speaking. Fear will do the job instead. I am profoundly grateful to everyone who has already supported me. Every donation will help pay for the practical and specialist legal assistance I need to defend these proceedings. I didn't seek this case. But I intend to defend it. givesendgo.com/help-defend-m…

Should have said he was misgendering as he went.

Some of you may remember a video that emerged last year showing West Midlands Police arriving at the home of a teenage girl after she was accused of a malicious communications offence for watching a TikTok video featuring a photograph of a teacher alongside negative comments. It inevitably went viral and is a clear sign of how far free speech has fallen in the UK. The girl was forced to hand over her devices or face arrest. Her mother agreed to a voluntary interview at the police station. After a lengthy investigation by West Midlands Police, the case was dropped. As Big Brother Watch’s Jake Hurfurt reveals in this week’s FSU Podcast with David Rose, the force did not even check the IP address from which the video was uploaded — which would have shown that another child had created it. In the end, both children faced no further action. In response to the disturbing video the mother took of officers entering their home, the police issued an extraordinary statement saying they were investigating an allegation of malicious communications and describing the case as “incredibly serious”. Surely the police should be focusing on real crimes on our streets, not a TikTok video? The force later removed the statement from its website, but never corrected the false allegation or admitted it was wrong. This is what we are up against in the fight for free speech in the UK. Watch the latest episode of the FSU Podcast below 👇

Disgraced ex-policeman Lynsay Watson, who regularly posts calls for people to “ethically assassinate” and “decommission” (ie murder) people with gender-critical beliefs, helpfully outlines why doing so is a serious crime even if it doesn’t lead to deaths.

Police Scotland fork out £1m for 'human rights adviser' so that it can list male suspects as women. scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/n…